|
|
|
What Kind of Atheist Are You?
|
|
|
Entered on: June 5, 2007 7:23 PM by Ross
|
|
|
You scored as Scientific Atheist, These guys rule. I'm not one of them myself, although I play one online. They know the rules of debate, the Laws of Thermodynamics, and can explain evolution in fifty words or less. More concerned with how things ARE than how they should be, these are the people who will bring us into the future.
|
Scientific Atheist
|
|
92% |
|
Apathetic Atheist
|
|
58% |
|
Angry Atheist
|
|
50% |
|
Agnostic
|
|
42% |
|
Spiritual Atheist
|
|
33% |
|
Militant Atheist
|
|
33% |
|
Theist
|
|
25% |
What kind of atheist are you?
created with QuizFarm.com |
|
|
|
NEWS 414 - 11 Comments
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| You scored as a Agnostic |
| Agnostics consider the possibility that they may be wrong about God's existence, no matter which side of the fence they stand on. Always willing to objectively evaluate the most ridiculous proof, nevertheless, these guys are skeptics of the Nth degree. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| You scored as a Scientific Atheist |
| These
guys rule. I'm not one of them myself, although I play one online. They
know the rules of debate, the Laws of Thermodynamics, and can explain
evolution in fifty words or less. More concerned with how things ARE
than how they should be, these are the people who will bring us into
the future. |
|
Scientific Atheist
|
|
92%
|
|
Angry Atheist
|
|
58%
|
|
Agnostic
|
|
50%
|
|
Militant Atheist
|
|
42%
|
|
Apathetic Atheist
|
|
42%
|
|
Spiritual Atheist
|
|
33%
|
|
Theist
|
|
25% |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, apparently I'm 9 percent more militant than Bert. But he's 8 percent angrier than me, which kinda makes sense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hmmm, not really sure what the difference between militantly atheist and angry atheist are. I would have thought it was the other way around, personally. I guess you could say I'm an angry atheist in the sense that I really loathe the religious right or others who try to push their religion onto the public. But I'm not mad at religion per se, beyond it being simply untrue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Has anyone read Chuck Norris on WingnutDaily talking about the evil atheists' plan to take over the country and outlaw Christianity? It's absolutely insane.
Part I
Part II
I like how he attacks Dawkins and Harris, especially:
So what credentials does a man like Dawkins have to discuss the presence or absence of God? Answer: He's "a scientist."
Well.. yeah. I'd say that's a much better set of credentials than some in a made-up field, like, say, theology. That's like saying that a chemist doesn't have the credentials to talk intelligently about turning lead into gold unless he's an accomplished alchemist. No, scientists are the best equipped people to make judgements about what is and isn't true in the world.
As for his treatment of Harris, it's worse, and I'd go so far as to say willfully misleading:
Similarly, Sam Harris has a bachelor's in philosophy – since when does that make one an expert on the
universe?
That's a low blow - Sam Harris is a PhD candidate in neuroscience. While techincally true that he doesn't have it yet, Chuck is clearly trying to take him down a peg in a very cheap fashion.
I also love this:
Just because science can explain many things in
the natural realm, does that mean it owns the corner market on metaphysics and God?
Ummm... if we ever find incontrovertible evidence of these other realms and science can't say anything about them, then we'll have something to talk about, you fucking douche.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't even know where to begin with this. The first fundamental bit of crap is that atheists are preparing for a war against Christians... and he doesn't realize that atheism excludes all religions.
Hate-crime laws are not only a violation of our
First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and religion, but a
violation of the 10th Amendment's limitations on the power of federal
government.
What? His only argument is that pastors can get in trouble for speaking out against homosexuality? Doesn't he realize that Christians can be the targets of hate crimes, too? Then again, how often is a Christian (or a heterosexual) a victim of a hate crime? Compared to gays and blacks, it's miniscule. The implication of his statement is appalling.
But this is what had me cracking up:
Earlier this year George Washington dollar coins were not only inscribed with the words "In God We Trust" on their edges, but many excluded them entirely!
Such minting modifications are a flagrant defiance against theism and a
public reflection of the place God is now relegated – to the fringes of
society.
Anybody with half a brain would realize this kind of idiotic statement is conspiracy theorist bullshit. I guess, in the first place, anyone who believes that Christians are more persecuted than other groups in this country will swallow whatever tripe they're being fed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Swerb said:
What? His only argument is that pastors can get in trouble for speaking out against homosexuality? Doesn't he realize that Christians can be the targets of hate crimes, too? Then again, how often is a Christian (or a heterosexual) a victim of a hate crime? Compared to gays and blacks, it's miniscule. The implication of his statement is appalling.
Not only that, his entire assertion that Hate Crime Laws are about silencing speech is totally unfounded. No one will be criminalizing what a pastor says on the pulpit, no matter how incindiary (well, okay, maybe not strictly true, but close to it). Simply saying gays are evil and going to hell is never going to be illegal in this country. Killing someone for being gay, though, that's a different matter and specifically what hate crime laws attempt to address. Not that I even agree with hate crime laws, mind you: I think the idea of punishing someone extra because of what they were thinking at the time is a bit odious. Regardless, Chuck has his head way, way up his own ass on this (and many other) topics.
Regarding the coins: he has no ability to even put himself in someone else's shoes, does he? The idea that no "In God We Trust" on coins is a "flagrant defiance against theism" definitely implies that having it there in the first place is a flagrant defiance against atheism, no? But I guess that's okay.
Douche.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Speaking of religious dolts, if you happen to be following the Republican primaries and are peripherally aware of a megadouche named Sam Brownback, you might be interested in his Op-Ed in the NY Times today. In case you missed it a couple weeks back, the moderator at a debate asked the candidates who doesn't believe in evolution, and Brownback answered that he didn't. This is his incredibly feeble attempt to rationalize his untenable position.
He makes assertion after assertion about man's special place in the universe and how faith is a necessary component to understanding this. But he provides exactly zero evidence for these assertions. Fucking politicians.
I've always hated Browback - he typifies everything that's wrong with theocratic congressmen, trying to foist his Christian viewpoints onto America. There's no way that he'll win the nomination but I can't help but skewer him anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know if any of you have heard about the Creation Museum that recently opened in Kentucky, but a friend of mine showed me some guy's Flickr slideshow where he chronicles the exhibit. It's stomach-churning.
I especially like this exhibit for Noah's flood where you see the heathens on the rocks about to be drowned, fighting and killing each other, so you can feel good about their demise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
